Anyone here with a DSLR also using a P&S super zoom

[sixone]

I don't understand this. How is a DSLR with a 28-300mm lens any less out of reach than a SX40? Sure it does weigh twice as much, about 2lbs vs 1lb, but both aren't going to fit in your pocket anyways and are most likely going to be strapped onto you. If you want to talk about something more reasonable, that's what travel zooms are for.

For the record, I had a Panasonic FZ20 and upgraded to a Pentax DSLR, albeit Pentax are known to make small and light DSLRs. I haven't found a need to take the FZ20 because it's more convenient. On the other hand, I have a Canon SD compact P&S that I sometimes take in place of the DSLR for convenience.

That DSLR isn't going to get into most concerts or other entertainments, and the travel zoom won't get the images that a superzoom can.

Convenience is nice, but versatility is better.

 

[Blackjack200]

That DSLR isn't going to get into most concerts or other entertainments, and the travel zoom won't get the images that a superzoom can.

Convenience is nice, but versatility is better.

That's not been my experience. I have a D40 and a 50mm f1.4 lens, very compact and I've never had a problem bringing it into any venue. I suppose if I strapped a 300mm lens on it, that might be a problem, but why do something like that?

Now, as for versatility, the 1600 iso and high speed of the lens gives fantastic low light shots, many museums and venues ban flash, or it just won't work well from a distance. The quick manual controls are also a huge plus. I was in a museum in Belfast last week and a there was a dance performance right on the main floor that we didn't know about. I grabbed the D40 and snapped a few shots, plenty of light with the fast lens to have quick shutter speeds and stop the action. But I didn't like the results, it looked like the dancers were just posing. So I just stopped the lens down ( I always keep in on Aperture priority) to force longer exposures, and fired off 3-4 more shots, bracing the camera against a railing. The last one came out really good (might post it here later).

Another sort of pseudo-advantage of a fixed focal length lens is that it forces you to move around to frame your shots right. As you move in and out you're more likely to move to a better perspective than if you had just zoomed in/out and snapped the shot.

A huge dis-advantage is that the lens I really want, the 24mm f1.4, is more than $2000

Edit: Just saw that you were referring to a DSLR with a 300mm zoom. You're probably right about that not getting into many venues.

 

[corkyg]

"Convenience is nice, but versatility is better.

Exactly! That's why I use both.

 

[yhelothar]

Edit: Just saw that you were referring to a DSLR with a 300mm zoom. You're probably right about that not getting into many venues.

300mm superzooms are surprisingly compact.
http://www.buy.com/pr/product.aspx?s...lerid=13505447

 

[twistedlogic]

Zoom is overrated, IMO.

+1000

I came from a superzoom and will never go back. Telephoto work takes plenty of support/plenty of light/ and/or high ISO to off-set camera shake at such a narrow FOV + densely pixel packed small sensor.

 

[corkyg]

+1000 I came from a superzoom and will never go back. Telephoto work takes plenty of support/plenty of light/ and/or high ISO to off-set camera shake at such a narrow FOV + densely pixel packed small sensor.

OK - and what DSLR do you have?

 

[Blackjack200]

300mm superzooms are surprisingly compact.
http://www.buy.com/pr/product.aspx?s...lerid=13505447

Fair enough, though I would say that an F6.3 lens seems a poor choice for a dimmly lit venue, especially considering that you'll need shutter speeds of at least 1/250 to avoid blur.

 

[Munky]

I'll add that once again the whole "missing shots" argument involves more than zoom. You wanna have extreme zoom reach, that's fine, but then you're missing shots if:

1. You left the superzoom at home/hotel room/whatever whereas a compact P&S in your pocket would have grabbed the shot.
2. You get a noisy or blurry shot due to the small sensor/small aperture of a superzoom at normal focal lengths (inside a museum, for example) whereas a DSLR with a kit lens or a compact prime would have been vastly superior.

The best thing IMO is to look at the photos you already took, the focal lengths you're likely to use, and decide whether the pros/cons of a superzoom are worth it. I know for a fact that I rarely use the extreme telephoto range, and will gladly chose a fast prime instead of a long-range zoom. Your needs may be different, but to automatically assume that a 20x zoom is the answer to every photo situation is simply wrong.

 

[yhelothar]

Fair enough, though I would say that an F6.3 lens seems a poor choice for a dimmly lit venue, especially considering that you'll need shutter speeds of at least 1/250 to avoid blur.

True, but a F/6.3 lens on a DSLR APS-C sensor will still have superior low light capabilities over a F/2.8 lens on a 1/2.3" sensor.

 

[ElFenix]

oh and now for some math

f/6.3 is 2 and 1/3 stops slower than f/2.8

2.8 -> 4 -> 5.6 -> 6.3

1/2.3" sensor has an area of 28.4592 mm^2.
a nikon crop sensor has an area of 372.09 mm^2.
that's ~13x larger than the 1/2.3" sensor.
iow, 3 and 2/3 stops smaller sensor.

so the f/6.3 lens with aps is roughly a stop and a third better than the f/2.8 with 1/2.3" in terms of light performance.



table for sensor sizes:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor%20sizes
is sony aps really smaller than some of the canon aps?

 

[Throckmorton]

Is the size of the pixels actually 13x larger with the DSLR? I know the actual sensor points are much smaller than the pixels that represent them.

 

[sixone]

I'll add that once again the whole "missing shots" argument involves more than zoom. You wanna have extreme zoom reach, that's fine, but then you're missing shots if:

1. You left the superzoom at home/hotel room/whatever whereas a compact P&S in your pocket would have grabbed the shot.

While that's true, the superzoom is going to get left at home/whatever a LOT less often than the DSLR.

2. You get a noisy or blurry shot due to the small sensor/small aperture of a superzoom at normal focal lengths (inside a museum, for example) whereas a DSLR with a kit lens or a compact prime would have been vastly superior.

If I get a blurry shot, it's most likely to be because I failed to use my camera properly - the same for superzoom or SLR. Noise can be minimized, if I use my camera properly. Again, a less-than-perfect shot is better than none.

The best thing IMO is to look at the photos you already took, the focal lengths you're likely to use, and decide whether the pros/cons of a superzoom are worth it. I know for a fact that I rarely use the extreme telephoto range, and will gladly chose a fast prime instead of a long-range zoom. Your needs may be different, but to automatically assume that a 20x zoom is the answer to every photo situation is simply wrong.

A camera phone would be as wrong for me as a superzoom would be for you. To assume that an fast prime is the answer to every photo situation is just as wrong. Every camera is a trade-off, one way or another.

 

[ElFenix]

Is the size of the pixels actually 13x larger with the DSLR? I know the actual sensor points are much smaller than the pixels that represent them.

assuming equal technology, it doesn't really matter what size the pixels are. the sensor is capturing 13x more light and when compared at the same magnification should be sqrt(13) stops better noise performance for the same exposure.

 

[rdp6]

Here's another 20x zoom pic. How are you going to crop something like this from 12 megapixels?

No need to crop if you carry mealworms: it is like bacon, but for birds!

16 megapixel version available here

D5100, 35mm f/1.8, SB-400, Nikon UV filter, batteries, strap, and lens cap: 1050g or 1# 5oz. Total DSLR noob, learning every day.

 

[corkyg]

Nice picture, but it has nothing to do with this thread, which now seems to have been hijacked.

 

[irse]

Thanks for everyone's opinions. After lookinga t various superzooms and lenses for my D300s. I'm going to look into the Nikon mirrorless cameras especially if they come out with the F mount adapter as planned. The sensor size is smaller than the APS-C sensor but it means also a smaller camera. If I can mount a 70-300 to it, it'll have an effectibve range of 189-810 plus I'll have my D300s with me also. So looks like its back to multiple cameras and lenses for me.

 

[twistedlogic]

I'm going to look into the Nikon mirrorless cameras especially if they come out with the F mount adapter as planned.

Solid choice, gives you more reach than m4/3rds would and AFs your current lenses.

If you snag one could you come back and post your thoughts. I'm interested to see how the AF works with legacy glass.

 

[ElFenix]

Solid choice, gives you more reach than m4/3rds would and AFs your current lenses.

If you snag one could you come back and post your thoughts. I'm interested to see how the AF works with legacy glass.

as a matter of math it's only a touch more reach than a panasonic G3 with the same focal length

reach is 100% pixel density, and the nikon is only about 10% more dense than that panasonic.

why panasonic doesn't put the g3 sensor in the other models beats me. it's clearly superior to the older sensor.

 

[Munky]

While that's true, the superzoom is going to get left at home/whatever a LOT less often than the DSLR.

I don't think so. Anything that doesn't easily fit into a pocket will be left at home one time or another.

If I get a blurry shot, it's most likely to be because I failed to use my camera properly - the same for superzoom or SLR. Noise can be minimized, if I use my camera properly. Again, a less-than-perfect shot is better than none.

There are definitely situations where only a DSLR can pull off an acceptable shot, such as those involving a moving subject in a poorly-lit environment.

A camera phone would be as wrong for me as a superzoom would be for you. To assume that an fast prime is the answer to every photo situation is just as wrong. Every camera is a trade-off, one way or another.

That's what I've been saying. No such thing as free lunch.

 

[corkyg]

"I don't think so. Anything that doesn't easily fit into a pocket will be left at home one time or another."

Now there's a real shot from the hip. Sheesh!

 

[sixone]

I don't think so. Anything that doesn't easily fit into a pocket will be left at home one time or another.

Not true for everyone. I carry a bag almost everywhere, plenty of room to drop in my superzoom, whether I think I'll need it or not.

There are definitely situations where only a DSLR can pull off an acceptable shot, such as those involving a moving subject in a poorly-lit environment.

Not true anymore. Every year brings better IQ from the superzooms, and my SX40 got several better-than-acceptable shots at a recent concert with terrible stage lighting.

That's what I've been saying. No such thing as free lunch.

Feel free to order only from the vegan menu, if that suits you.

 

[yhelothar]

Not true for everyone. I carry a bag almost everywhere, plenty of room to drop in my superzoom, whether I think I'll need it or not.

So a compact APS DSLR with the aforementioned 28-300mm zoom wouldn't fit in the bag?

 

[corkyg]

A lot of these replies reflect no actual air travel experience overseas, and appear to be pure conjecture. When I travel, the essential bag is my laptop bag. I find the SX30-IS fits perfectly in the center compartment. My 5D MKII does not. So, when I travel i have a pretty good 24-840mm capability. Why would I want to buy a APS DSLR with a 24-300 lens? Not sure it would fit.

 

[sixone]

So a compact APS DSLR with the aforementioned 28-300mm zoom wouldn't fit in the bag?

It might fit, but I'd have a sore shoulder by the time I got back home.

 

[Munky]

Not true for everyone. I carry a bag almost everywhere, plenty of room to drop in my superzoom, whether I think I'll need it or not.

I don't carry a bag everywhere, so in my case a superzoom is not any more portable than a consumer-sized DSLR with a compact lens.

Not true anymore. Every year brings better IQ from the superzooms, and my SX40 got several better-than-acceptable shots at a recent concert with terrible stage lighting.

Then your acceptance level must not be that high. A DSLR will still blow it out of the water in terms of image quality, and to imply otherwise is foolish.

Feel free to order only from the vegan menu, if that suits you.

I'm not the one standing in the salad bar sporting a tiny sensor with an over-sized DSLR-wannabe lens.